On 17 Sep 2002, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> tir, 2002-09-17 kl. 19:42 skrev Booker C. Bense:
>
> > - Read the protocol more closely. There is no support for transactions
> > or locking. You will have a hard time building a robust system with
> > lot's of writes without those primatives. Any system that writes
> > extensively to LDAP needs to support a complete rollback/queueing
> > implementation outside of the protocol. Speed is not the problem,
> > consistancy is what will bite you in the long run. LDAP works fine
> > for WIRM applications ( write infrequently read many), it breaks
> > horribly for write intensive applications.
>
> This hasn't got much to do with the protocol IMHO, everything to do with
> the choice of database. BDB 4.0.14 does, indeed, have fine-grained
> locking and transactional (roll-back) logging.
>
- The problem is not consistancy of the database in current software,
it's consistancy of the information. There's no way for your
application to have any guarantee that the data it reads back,
is the data it's written. If that's not a requirement of the
application then ldap may be perfectly acceptable.
- Booker C. Bense